A modern tragedy

Modern Britain old problem

Once mighty oak?
There's so much wrong, the EU economy is in trouble, the climate warming scam has been exposed and the Chilcot Inquiry is inflicting pain. There's also a lot wrong with the Tory party and Fraser Nelson has written about this following a speech he gave as the 2010 Sir Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture. In this Spectator post Nelson justifies his lecture via an ongoing disagreement with Daniel Finkelstein, who is critical of Nelson in his post in the Times. Still with me? I hope so.

So we have Finkelstein, said to be very chummy with the Camerons. And we have Patrick Hennessy political editor of the Sunday Telegraph, said to be a Brownite loyalist. Both play a part here. There is a link in the Nelson post to his speech, it's generally very supportive of Cameron. However, the truth is that Cameron makes many mistakes. Nelson suggests we must -

"salute Cameron for the incredible achievement (changing the party) – one accomplished in the face of many enemies on the right. But the game changed in 2007".

Yes, it was Cameron who changed it to always following Nulabour. And 2007 cannot be a tipping point as politics is dynamic, always changing. What is the point of 'Nulabour Lite'? Two very similar political parties is another very big mistake.

Nelson also mentions in his speech, "bedroom bloggers" and it is Richard North on EUReferendum who has done so much to expose the climate change scam for what it is. Yet Cameron and Ken Clarke (another one of Cameron's mistakes) still cling to the myth.

Nelson mentions Strasbourg, once. Dealing with the madness of the EU and the climate scam in the form of carbon trading could bankrupt us, so mistakes aplenty.

Not so long ago Patrick Hennessy interviewed Ken Clarke; the term 'national treasure' means all things to all people. The BBC think Stephen Fry is and wheels him out accordingly. While the Tory Party pin their hopes on Ken Clarke. Part of the problem here is that both Fry and Clarke are visually merging into the same shape. The other part is Fry, like many performers, celebrities and comedians, thinks he has political gifts too. While Clarke, knowingly or not, probably the latter, is turning into a comedian. It's now a year since Clarke was taken back into the fold by Cameron, at that time the BBC said -

"Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor and thrice defeated Tory leadership contender, is to return to frontline politics as shadow business secretary. He is widely regarded as one of the Conservative Party's most senior and important figures".

The BBC was clearly enjoying itself like the rest of the MSM. Gordon Brown had brought back Peter Mandelson, in desperation so it turned out; was Cameron desperate too? The MSM, getting ahead of itself as usual, promised much to come, big battles between Mandelson and Clarke. This did not happen. As for Mandy acres of publicity for himself, as was to be expected, yet still loathed by swathes of Nulabour from the grass-roots up to the Cabinet. It's much the same with Clarke, a very confusing mix. True he gets publicity but he too is hard to value precisely, recent interviews with Patrick Hennessy show this. For example Hennessy says -

"In serious times, Gordon Brown is fond of saying, you need serious politicians. With a general election less than six months away, David Cameron has taken the Prime Minister at his word and uncaged his biggest beast".

Hennessy has also opted, lazily, for describing Clarke as - "larger-than-life".

There are a small number of sad people who think Elvis Presley is still with us, alive and well, living in a maisonette in Dagenham. Equally there are a number of people who agree with the 'big beast' description. And the 'larger-than-life' tag gets pinned on any old nutter these days, it's neither original or complimentary. But the salient fact is, if Clarke is the Tories' biggest beast then Cameron has plenty to worry about. Clarke on Cameron-

"He has changed the party in ways of which I really approve because we had become far too right wing and far too obsessed with narrow issues".

Too 'right wing', I wonder what practical steps Clarke took, if any to rectify this? While 'narrow issues' has to be the EU.

A recent Cameron wobble was the support for married couples, this showed Clarke as not helpful merely emblematic, appealing to yesterday's voter. Clarke mumbled something about this policy being "social engineering". This was help to Gordon Brown, it also made Clarke look foolish as his beloved EU is awash with social engineering. One assumes he had noticed? And just a few days ago he trotted over to the EU, no doubt, to tell Barroso that Dave is going to be a pushover.

As said before Cameron has made many mistakes, another one showed up the other day in the shape of Michael Heseltine. He is Cameron's advisor on inner cities, what sort of a 'non-job' is that? Does he have the odd city tucked into his property portfolio? Why should Cameron, who lives in London, need such a thing? Heseltine, in a strange way, is just like Claire Short. She was always the towering figure in the Short Party which just happened to run parallel to Nulabour. Heseltine just happened to turn up, every year, at the Tory Party Conference and make the same, sort of, speech in that shouty style. The press loved it, the voters? It would seem they were less impressed, so why is Cameron employing him now; not much has changed over the years has it?